I heard the news last week during a quick headline break on Nigel Farage’s daily call-in show. Fifty-five men in West Yorkshire – fifty-five! – had been arrested and interrogated in connection with rape-gang allegations.
That was that. The story was summed up in a couple of sentences and lasted no more than a few seconds. Then it was back to the show.
Later I looked online for more details. Finally I found a 200-word item in the Mirror. But that seemed to be it. I couldn’t locate anything at all about the rape-gang arrests in the Daily Mail, Telegraph, or Guardian.
My first thought was that the story deserved more attention than that. My second thought was that, well, Britain has been through so many grooming-gang arrests and trials in the last couple of years, with the number of defendants and accusers climbing way up into the four figures (so far), that this latest haul is just a drop in the bucket.
My third thought was that this near-total lack of coverage was only to be expected. It’s no secret by now, after all, that the British media prefer to keep reportage on Muslim rape gangs to a minimum. The journalistic formula is simple: take exceedingly brief notice of a mass arrest, without giving the names of the suspects or including words like “Islam” or “Muslim” or “Pakistani” (if anything, use “Asian,” or, even better, identify the defendants as “Bradford men” or “Manchester men”), then – months (or years) later – report as succinctly as possible on the suspects' convictions. This latter report might oblige you to mention the names of at least some of the convicts – Muhammed this, Muhammed that – which will, unfortunately, give away the game.
But the damage will be minimal. Instead of battering the public every day for months with luridly detailed testimony that will burn itself for all time into millions of minds and hearts – and that will add up to vivid, horrifying, and irrefutable evidence of the savage reality of Islam – you'll restrict the whole nightmare to a couple of brief articles, published months or even years apart, which your editors will obligingly bury somewhere in the middle of the paper and which readers may not even notice (and, if they do, will soon forget).
Bottom line: keep your coverage of such atrocities down to a bare minimum, and you’ll have fully performed your duty as a member of the Fourth Estate. To report more vigorously on these stories would be to court sensationalism and, potentially, to whip up the proles into a lather of Islamophobia.
Such, then, is the standard approach of the British media to Muslim-on-infidel crime, however extensive, however savage, and however genuinely reflective of Islamic cultural norms and theological edicts that crime may be.
But there’s another side to this coin. If something happens – however trivial – that can be presented as an example of infidel-on-Muslim transgression, all rules are off. Or, rather, all the rules are turned entirely upside down.
Take the case of Bailey McLaren, a 16-year-old working-class boy from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. In November, footage of him jumping Jamal, a 15-year-old Syrian-born classmate, in the schoolyard, apparently in October, went viral. Although nobody was seriously harmed in the fracas, the British media rushed to report at length on it. Because Bailey held Jamal down while pouring a bottle of water on his face, he was described as having committed an act of “waterboarding.” Because Jamal was Syrian, Bailey's action was characterized as “racist.”
In fact no context whatsoever was provided along with the video; the reason why Bailey did what he did was unknown. In the video, he can be heard saying only two words – “You bastard!” – which suggest not prejudice but personal grievance. In any event, what Bailey did do, even though it was arguably uncivilized and even if it were to turn out to have been utterly unprovoked, was no worse than any number of other donnybrooks that occur every day in schoolyards around the world.
Yet the British press went bonkers over it. The Mail, the Standard, the Telegraph, and the Sun were only a few of the papers that ran long, highly charged accounts. The Mail called the video “distressing” and “sickening,” saying that it had “shocked the country.”
Naturally, the police brought Bailey up on charges. Top public officials, too, got into the act. A Member of Parliament named Nadine Dorries “called for 'serious action' over the bullying and added the UK should 'open its arms' to those facing persecution.” Another MP, Tobias Ellwood, tweeted: “This bully, his parents, the school where this occurs and the onlookers who fail to step in, all have big questions to answer.” Ellwood told BBC Newsnight: “I worry that we are becoming a 'walk on by' society where we're allowing space for these things to happen.”
All this, mind you, in a country where journalists and cops and politicians conspired for decades to keep a tight lid on facts about the Muslim rape-gang epidemic even as it was destroying thousands upon thousands of working-class girls from families not unlike Bailey’s. It might reasonably be asserted that politicians like Dorries and Ellwood have “big questions to answer” about that massive cover-up.
As a consequence of the nationwide coverage of the schoolyard scuffle, Jamal received what the Mail called “a huge outpouring of support” from all over Britain. Total strangers reached out. The Huddersfield Town Supporters' Association invited him to a football match. Jamal was offered a free lifetime membership at a Dublin gym and a training course at a gym in Bradford. BBC talking head Jake Humphrey said he’d foot the bill for a trip by Jamal to see his favorite soccer team play.
Somebody even set up a GoFundMe page for Jamal. It’s already raked in over £100,000. One donor, David Paton, said: “Poor boy. He manages to escape war and tyranny, only to be bullied by some low life thug in the UK.” Note that while it’s infra dig nowadays to call, say, a Muslim mass rapist a “thug” (recall Nancy Pelosi's ardent insistence that MS-13 gang members are “children of God”), it’s OK to slap that label on a British teenager for being involved in a run-of-the-mill playground incident. (To borrow from Hillary's lexicon, the kid is a “deplorable.”)
Apparently by way of confirming Bailey’s status as a low-life thug, the Mail pointed out that he was “a Britain First supporter,” had “shared posts from Tommy Robinson on Facebook,” had made reference online to “the hell created by one evil ideology,” and had written online “that Muslims claimed raping white British children was 'part of their culture.’” (Indeed, raping the children of the infidel enemy is part of Islamic culture. But in today’s Britain, when it comes to Islam, the truth is no defense.)
Jamal and his family, reported the Mail, were “receiving ongoing support from police and other agencies.” Which is light-years ahead of what “police and other agencies” have done for the thousands of white and Sikh working-class girls who have been repeatedly raped, over years and even decades, by British Muslim gangs. And what of Bailey? Well, as the hysteria against him intensified, the humble council flat in which he lived with his mother and two sisters was attacked by what the Sun called “a gang of vigilantes,” forcing police to evacuate the family in the middle of the night.
On December 5, Tommy Robinson, who in the midst of his own personal drama had admirably sought to uncover the facts of Bailey's story, released a video in which he maintained that Jamal is not the innocent victim painted by the media. A woman told Tommy that her daughter, a pupil at the Huddersfield school, had sustained serious injuries as the result of an unprovoked attack by Jamal. In addition, Tommy interviewed the parent of a boy whom Jamal had also allegedly bullied. Tommy even spoke to Bailey himself, whose own testimony was persuasive and moving.
On January 18, Tommy provided a video update. Tommy said that Jamal had threatened Bailey in class just prior to their contretempts and that that, not racial or religious prejudice, was the motive for Bailey’s assault. Tommy accused police of seeking, after the schoolyard video went viral, to relocate the McLarens to a “Muslim ghetto,” specifically to a Muslim-owned B&B populated by drug addicts and prostitutes (an action reminiscent of Tommy’s own transfer, last summer, from a relatively safe prison to a more heavily Muslim one).
According to Tommy, the McLarens wisely refused to move into that B&B; instead, Tommy and some friends helped set up them in a secret location. But what to do now? At this point, practically speaking, the boy and his family are refugees – only, as Tommy put it, they’re not receiving anything like the kind of sensitive, compassionate help that the British government routinely grants refugees (however dubious their refugee status) from other countries.
Bailey’s sisters, who are eleven years old, have been inundated with rape threats and haven’t been able to go to school for two months. (Tommy noted that they’re living in a city, Huddersfield, where “sixty Muslim men” have been put on trial in the past year for raping girls of around that age.) As for Bailey himself, he celebrated Christmas by trying to take his life with a drug overdose. After he spent several days in a hospital being nursed back to health, Tommy personally took him “to see mental-health teams” because the authorities hadn’t done so.
“If they were refugees [from abroad] they’d have everything,” Tommy charged. But as British citizens, the McLarens hadn’t “been given a single thing” by any official agency. Huddersfield FC, which had offered Jamal free tickets, actually dispatched a letter to Bailey, a devoted fan of the club (and one who had not yet been convicted of anything), banning him for life from its matches. Tommy wondered aloud: had Huddersfield FC ever written such a letter to a drug addict or child rapist?
I don’t know Tommy personally. Nor do I know either Bailey or Jamal. Even if Bailey really is a hateful “thug” and Jamal a saint, the fact remains that the public reaction to this story has been pathologically disproportionate. People all over the UK have fastened onto it as an opportunity for virtue signaling of the sickest sort. One is reminded of the acts of child sacrifice practiced by pre-Columbian cultures to appease the gods. The gods in this case, of course, are the sons of Allah themselves – the British Muslims who hate Britain, hate America, hate the West, hate freedom, hate gays and Jews, and who are themselves far bigger bullies than this one teenage boy could ever be, but whose favor millions of cowardly Brits are perversely and pathetically desperate to curry.